[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Attorney Lee Suet Fern has been suspended from the practice for 15 months after she was found guilty of misconduct for handling the last will of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon wrote in Friday’s sentencing (November 20) that Ms. Lee was guilty of misconduct “unbecoming of a lawyer and attorney.”
He also said his guilt was “at least moderately high”, while the harm caused by misbehavior was “at the lower end of the moderate range.”
The decision was made by the Three-Judge Court, consisting of Chief Justice Menon, Appellate Judge Judith Prakash, and Judge Woo Bih Li. The Court is the highest disciplinary body that deals with misconduct by lawyers.
During the August hearings, the Law Society tried to get Ms. Lee to cancel the list for professional misconduct.
Ms. Lee, the wife of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s son, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, has been a lawyer for more than 37 years and is listed online as a principal at Morgan Lewis Stamford.
Ms. Lee’s attorneys, lead attorneys Kenneth Tan and former Attorney General Walter Woon, urged the Court to dismiss all charges against him, arguing that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew knew what he was doing.
The disciplinary court had previously found Ms Lee guilty of two counts of grossly improper conduct as a lawyer.
“INCONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS”
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had written seven wills, the first six of which were prepared by his attorney, Ms. Kwa Kim Li.
However, Ms. Kwa did not participate in the last will, and Ms. Lee allegedly handled it as Ms. Kwa was absent and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had requested that her first will be used as her final will. The will was drawn up and executed in December 2013.
The last will differed from the sixth because it restored equal shares of property between Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s three sons: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, and Dr. Lee Wei Ling. In the sixth testament, Dr. Lee Wei Ling received an additional 1/7 share of the inheritance compared to her two siblings.
The latter also reintroduced a clause requesting the demolition of the late Mr. Lee’s home at 38 Oxley Road.
READ: Law Society seeks to disqualify Lee Suet Fern by Lee Kuan Yew’s will, defense requests that charges be dismissed
Ms. Lee sent a draft of this latest testament to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew on December 16, 2013, copying Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Ms. Kwa. Ms. Kwa “for some unknown reason” appeared not to have received the email, based on material facts.
On the question of whether there was an implicit advance between Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Court noted that Ms. Lee had given “two inconsistent explanations” of the circumstances that led her to send the email.
The first explanation was that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had instructed Ms. Lee to return her will to the first.
This was inconsistent with a second explanation, which was adopted only during the disciplinary proceedings, according to which, instead, he had communicated those instructions to Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, who had then asked Ms. Lee to take the necessary steps. to give effect to those instructions.
READ: Lee Kuan Yew knew what he wanted in the will, Lee Suet Fern is not acting as his lawyer: Legal Misconduct Defense
The Court determined that the second explanation was the true position, as “there was no plausible reason” why Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had “abruptly approached” Ms. Lee for help in getting back to her first will. given that “he considered Ms. Kwa as his attorney for matters relating to his estate in general.”
Furthermore, Ms. Lee would not need to copy Mr. Lee Hsien Yang in the email and invoke him to carry out Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s instructions. You also wouldn’t need to copy Ms. Kwa on the email to ask her to produce the last will attached to the email.
The court also noted that there were no further messages between Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew after the email. Instead, they were between Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
“SINGULAR APPROACH” IN THE WISHES OF LEE HSIEN YANG
The Court also rejected Ms. Lee’s version that Mr. Lee Hsien Yang had sent her the draft of the last will and she simply sent it to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew “without even opening it.”
The Court found that the draft came from Ms. Lee, who had participated in the drafting of the first will, and not from Mr. Lee Hsien Yang.
Mr. Lee Hsien Yang also “was not telling the truth when he said that he was the one who had sent” the draft of the last will to Ms. Lee, Chief Justice Menon said.
In weighing Ms. Lee’s guilt, the Court considered several factors in favor of a harsher sentence, including her “singular focus on achieving what her husband wanted, outside of (Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s) interests.”
This was compared to the absence of an implicit advance between Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, “which somewhat attenuated the degree of trust that (Mr. Lee Kuan Yew) placed in (Ms. Lee)” . That said, this factor was “of limited weight” as Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was “ultimately directed by Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, with the knowledge of (Ms. Lee)” to rely solely on his representations about him. last will draft, which turned out to be false.
The court also ruled that Ms. Lee “did not act dishonestly in her dealings” with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, although this factor was also of “reduced weight” as she acted with “a certain degree of dishonesty” in the disciplinary proceedings when try to downplay your participation in the preparation and execution of the last will.
LEE SUET FERN RESPONDS TO THE COURT’S DECISION
In a statement issued through Mr. Lee Hsien Yang’s Facebook account, Ms. Lee said, “I do not agree with this decision. There was no basis for this case to have been started. “
He added that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew “knew what he wanted” and “got what he wanted.”
“The Court of Three did not find that he was not on their minds or not in control. He made the decision to go back to his historic 2011 will after speaking with his attorney Kwa Kim Li before I was tasked with find a witness.
“Anyone can revoke their own will while they are alive. If this will was not what Lee Kuan Yew wanted, he could easily have made another one, as he had done several times before,” said Ms Lee.
